Posted by cool_ambo on June 28th, 2013 | Comments Off on Zimmerman Prosecution Falters

Due to an apparent improperly oriented witnesses, the Zimmerman prosecution gained less points tna the defense from the declaration of their own witnesses.

One witness even stated that Zimmerman is the one being pummeled by Travon Martin and he is the one yelling for help.

But in all fairness, let us summasize what everybody knows and what everybody agrees on:

1. Zimmerman admitted that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

2. Zimmerman suffered injuries on the head and nose. Trayvon had only one fatal gunshot wound.

3. Zimmerman does not feel guilt in killing Trayvon.

4. That there was a fight that was noisy and disturbed the neighborhood.

What surprises me though is that the weight is being given undue consideration to the gravity of the injuries sustained by Zimmerman. They say that if the injuries were not that serious he wpould not have been hustified to shoot Trayvon Martin.

I say that the decision to shoot the attacker should come from the victim notwithstanding the injuries that he sustained after the scuffle. In fact, the decision to shot the attacker should be done should the attacker just gives the hint that he would injure the victim. The trial analysts could never, never get into what Zimmerman was thinking atr the moment before he fired the gun.

Think about it this way: if both Zimmerman and Trayvon had guns at the same time, who do you think would have been justified to shoot the other?

Posted by cool_ambo on June 27th, 2013 | Comments Off on The Trayvon-Zimmerman Scuffle

The Trayvon-Zimmerman Scuffle

This scuffle could have been avoided had the protagonists avoided some mistakes. This analysis is done devoid of racial profiling, discrimination or any ill-feeling that the protagonists could have had against each other. This is based simply on the actions that were done that inevitably led to the scuffle which resulted in Trayvon’s death.

Trayvon relates over the phone that he sees Zimmerman watching him. He did not use the word “stalking”. If Zimmerman is watching Trayvon to find out whether he will do something wrong, Zimmerman’s manner of following Trayvon in a vehicle was made in such a manner that it is conspicuous. This eventually unnerves Trayvon who starts his maneuvers to lose Zimmerman.

Trayvon ducks into the back of some houses to which his Dad’s house belong. A mistake on Trayvon’s part because by now Zimmerman’s suspicions about Trayvon not doing good is heightened. The best thing Trayvon could have done is ring his Dad’s house. In so doing, Trayvon gives the impression that he belongs to this neighborhood. If his Dad is not at home, he should ring the next-door neighbor. At least he could ask this neighbor for help and/or act as a witness to Zimmerman’s actions.

Zimmerman then gets out of his vehicle to look for Trayvon using the concrete pathway. A mistake. He should have left his headlights on, or shine it directly to the pathway where he was going. He probably had faith in himself because he is armed.

Trayvon came out to accost him. A mistake. He came from behind and sounded aggressively. At that point, a scuffle is inevitable because both of them are at a heightened excitement.

Posted by cool_ambo on June 26th, 2013 | Comments Off on The Country Has Changed…..

And so sayeth the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, probably making a mark on the hastening of the new era in American political structure.

There are noteworthy changes made in the rulings regarding gay marriages, voting formulae, and abortion laws.

If one analyzes the trend that is going on in these decisions, the Supreme Court is simply falling back on the structure with which the United States is organized.

The United States is a remarkable analgamation of different states and regions. It is basically structured on a welded union of American States. Falling back to its essential foundations, the Supreme Court endeavors to give back to each state their decisions indepemdent from the Federal government. Jurisdiction is therefore vested upon each state legislature and government. And therefore we see cases being thrown back to the state courts for the necessary rulings. This is based on the belief that each state may have its own separate government which functions with the federal government only as regards federal issues.

This reminds me of the Canadian Notwithstanding clause afforded to the different provinces and territories.

Now, if gay marriages, abortions, immigration, and voting formulae have come within the Supreme Court agenda for change, would the Second Amendment get in there, too?